Identifying the sectors involved in the European public health emergency preparedness and response: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was conducted with the aims of identifying sectors mentioned in the public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) literature and mapping the involvement of those sectors in the seven PHEPR cycle domains. SETTING: A detailed search strategy was conducted in Embase and Scopus, covering the period between 1 January 2005 and 1 January 2020. METHODS: Published articles focusing on preparedness for and/or response to public health emergencies of multiple origins on the European continent were included. The frequency with which predetermined sectors were mentioned when describing collaboration during the preparedness and response cycle was determined. RESULTS: The results show that description of the involvement of sectors in PHEPR in general and collaboration during PHEPR is predominantly confined to a limited number of sectors, namely 'Governmental institutions', 'Human health industry', 'Experts' and 'Civil Society'. Description is also limited to only three domains of the PHEPR cycle, namely 'Risk and crisis management', 'Pre-event preparations and governance' and 'Surveillance'. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal preparedness and response require predefined collaboration with a broader scope of partners than currently seems to be the case based on this literature review. We recommend considering these outcomes when planning multisectoral collaboration during preparedness and response, as well as the need to further operationalise the term 'multisectoral collaboration' during PHEPRs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO with registration number 176 331.

Impact of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular risk factors appear to be at risk of poor outcome. It is unknown if these patients should be considered a vulnerable group in healthcare delivery and healthcare recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the following question: In which hospitalised patients with proven COVID-19 and with underlying CVD and cardiovascular risk factors should doctors be alert to a poor outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality and intensive care unit admission. Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant search terms until 9 June 2020. After systematic analysis, 8 studies were included. RESULTS: Based on the literature search, there was insufficient evidence that CVD and cardiovascular risk factors are significant predictors of mortality and poor outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Due to differences in methodology, the level of evidence of all studies was graded 'very low' according to the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. It is expected that in the near future, two multinational and multicentre European registries (CAPACITY-COVID and LEOSS) will offer more insight into outcome in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This literature review demonstrated there was insufficient evidence to identify CVD and cardiovascular risk factors as important predictors of poor outcome in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. However, patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors remain vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As such, governmental and public health COVID-19 recommendations for vulnerable groups apply to these patients.

How often and to what extent do admitted COVID-19 patients have signs of cardiac injury?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can cause myocardial injury in a significant proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and seems to be associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this review was to study how often and to what extent COVID-19 causes myocardial injury and whether this is an important contributor to outcome with implications for management. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline and Embase. Myocardial injury was defined as elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels with at least one value > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit. The primary outcome measure was mortality, whereas secondary outcome measures were intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Four studies and one review were included. The presence of myocardial injury varied between 9.6 and 46.3%. Myocardial injury was associated with a higher mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 5.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.48-8.80) and more ICU admissions (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.07-6.89). The results regarding length of hospital stay were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Patients with myocardial injury might be classified as high-risk patients, with probably a higher mortality rate and a larger need for ICU admission. cTn levels can be used in risk stratification models and can indicate which patients potentially benefit from early medication administration. We recommend measuring cTn levels in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital or who deteriorate during admission.

The effects of ACE2 expression mediating pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme­2 (ACE2) expression mediating pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 infected patients. Although it has been suggested that these drugs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 infection, experimental data suggest these agents may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II-mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation and fibrosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of medications that influence ACE2 expression (ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and thiazolidinediones) on the outcomes of COVID-19? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 24 June 2020. After systematic analysis, nine studies were included. RESULTS: The results were described for two different groups, an overall group in which all users were compared with non-users and a group in which only hypertensive patients were included. Within each group a distinction was made between results for ACEI/ARB use, ACEI use, ARB use, NSAID use and thiazolidinedione use. None of the studies demonstrated increased mortality in the two groups. Furthermore, none of the studies showed an effect on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'moderate' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the literature demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of ACE2 expression mediating pharmacotherapy on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question.

Effect of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke, has been reported. It is unknown whether anticoagulation can prevent these complications and improve outcome. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of (prophylactic and therapeutic dose) anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications and clinical outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 17 July 2020. After systematic analysis, eight studies were included. Analysis was stratified for the start of anticoagulation before or during hospital admission. RESULTS: There was insufficient evidence that therapeutic anticoagulation could improve the outcome in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. None of the studies demonstrated improved mortality, except for one very small Italian study. Furthermore, none of the studies showed a positive effect of anticoagulation on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy, except for two studies demonstrating an association between anticoagulation and a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'low' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the literature showed that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of anticoagulation on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question.

Preparedness and the importance of meeting the needs of healthcare workers: a qualitative study on Ebola.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) face specific challenges in infectious disease outbreaks, which provide unusual, new events with exposure risk. The fear of infection or new, unknown tasks in an unfamiliar setting, for example, may complicate outbreak management. AIM: To gain insight into how healthcare organizations can prepare to meet the needs of their HCWs by capturing the experiences of HCWs with patients with suspected Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted 23 in-depth interviews with HCWs, of whom 20 worked in a Dutch university hospital and three worked in a regional ambulance service. We invited HCWs who cared for patients with suspected Ebola or who were on the team preparing for admission of such patients in the period 2014-2015. FINDINGS: The HCWs were stressed and anxious, but most rated their overall experience as positive. We categorized the reported experiences in three main themes, namely, experiences related to: (i) the novelty of the threat, (ii) the risk of infection and fear of transmission, and (iii) the excessive attention. Our results underline the importance of a supportive working environment suitable for crises. CONCLUSION: The experiences of HCWs dealing with patients with suspected Ebola can direct improvements in generic preparedness for highly transmissible diseases.